Amala v. The Additional Chief Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.03.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN H.C.P.No.2572 of 2023 Amala ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of police, Avadi City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai 600 007.

3. The SuperintendentCentral Prison Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Inspector of Police, M4-Redhills Police Station, Redhills,Chennai ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order vide memo No.230/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 02.11.2023 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the detenu Gowri Sankar, S/o.

Kulothungan, aged about 27 years, now confined in Central Prison, Salem, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S. Gokula Kannan For Respondents : Mr.E. Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C. Aravind

ORDER

M.S.RAMESH, J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN , J.

The petitioner herein, who is the mother of the detenu Gowri Sankar, aged about 24 years, S/o. Kulothungan, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 02.11.2023 slapped on her son, branding him as "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.

4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 02.11.2023. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. In the case of 'Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura', reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewise, between the date of detention order and the actual arrest, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the live and proximate link, between the grounds and the purpose of detention, stands snapped in arresting the detenu. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:- "20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner

from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case."

6. Drawing inspiration from the judgment in Sushanta Kumar Banik's case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of 'Gomathi Vs. Principal Secretary to Government and Others', reported in '2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6332', had held that when there is an inordinate delay from the date of arrest/date of proposal till the order of detention, the live and proximate link between them would also stand snapped and thereby, had quashed the detention order on this ground.

7. In yet another case i.e., in 'Nagaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu', reported in '(2018) 3 MWN (Cri) 428', this Court had held that the delay

of 36 days in passing the detention order after the arrest of the detenu would snap the live and proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. Hence, in view of the unexplained and inordinate delay in passing the order of detention, after the arrest of the detenu, the detention order in the present case, is liable to be quashed.

8. Accordingly, the detention order passed by the second respondent on 02.11.2023 in No.230/BCDFGISSSV/2023, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Gowri Sankar, aged about 24 years, S/o.Kulothungan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case. [M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.03.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No bga

To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of police, Avadi City Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Chennai 600 007.

3. The SuperintendentCentral Prison Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Inspector of Police, M4-Redhills Police Station, Redhills,Chennai 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

6. The Joint Secretary, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

M.S.RAMESH, J.

and SUNDER MOHAN , J.

bga H.C.P.No.2572 of 2023 11.03.2024